>My dollars contribute to my community NO MORE if I buy from Ford than from Toyota. The CEOs and shareholders of those corporations benefit. Not "Japan as a whole" or "America as a whole." The CEOs of don't share with the everyday people of the countries they live in. They just live like fat-cats themselves. As for shareholders, you don't have to be American to buy stock in GM and you don't have to be Japanese to buy stock in Toyota. I believe both are publicly-traded companies, though I could be wrong.
The only public benefit these companies give is jobs, and that is determined by where their manufacturaing plants are located, not where the CEO lives. And Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai all do most of their manufacturing of US-market cars in the US, even though the CEOs live in East Asia.
When General Motors starts contributing to public education in Oregon, or pays for road repair in Oregon, then maybe I'll see a patriotic reason to buy GM. But at the moment, neither GM nor Toyota is doing jack to help the community I live in, so I see no reason to be more loyal to one than the other.<
You have no idea how wrong you are, my friend. The amount of jobs GM and Ford contribute to this country is spread upon its suppliers and those that supply them. Toyota and Honda do not have as much domestic content in their brands and they do not contribute nearly as many jobs as the Big 3.
Honda and Toyota are not domestic brands. Just because they build many cars here does not mean they are domestics.
I'm not telling you to buy an American car if you dont like them, just don;t be fooled into thinking it's patriotic to buy a foreign car that's made in the US. You are just fooling yourself if you think that way.
If GM goes down, you will see the repercussions. You think the market crash in '87 and 2000 were bad? It would be a disaster of immense proportions.
You have no idea how wrong you are, my friend. The amount of jobs GM and Ford contribute to this country is spread upon its suppliers and those that supply them. Toyota and Honda do not have as much domestic content in their brands and they do not contribute nearly as many jobs as the Big 3.
Honda and Toyota are not domestic brands. Just because they build many cars here does not mean they are domestics.
I'm not telling you to buy an American car if you dont like them, just don;t be fooled into thinking it's patriotic to buy a foreign car that's made in the US. You are just fooling yourself if you think that way.
So, what's more patriotic: buying a Toyota made in Fremont, California; a Honda made in Marysville, Ohio; a Ford made in Hermosillo, Mexico; or a Chrysler made in Windsor, Ontario, Canada by a German-owned parent company? How about a Saturn VUE with an engine supplied by Honda? How about a Chevy Aveo made in Korea?
Did you know that a Honda Ridgeline has 75% domestic (US and Canada) content, while a Chevy Avalanche has only 61% domestic content? A Toyota Camry built in Kentucky has 80% domestic content; a Chrysler 300 has only 72%. A Toyota Sienna has 90% domestic content while a Jeep Grand Cherokee has only 75%.
In a global economy, exhorting people to "buy American" cars is overly simplistic.
So, what's more patriotic: buying a Toyota made in Fremont, California; a Honda made in Marysville, Ohio; a Ford made in Hermosillo, Mexico; or a Chrysler made in Windsor, Ontario, Canada by a German-owned parent company? How about a Saturn VUE with an engine supplied by Honda? How about a Chevy Aveo made in Korea?
Did you know that a Honda Ridgeline has 75% domestic (US and Canada) content, while a Chevy Avalanche has only 61% domestic content? A Toyota Camry built in Kentucky has 80% domestic content; a Chrysler 300 has only 72%. A Toyota Sienna has 90% domestic content while a Jeep Grand Cherokee has only 75%.
In a global economy, exhorting people to "buy American" cars is overly simplistic.
Are you sure about the domestic content percentages? I find it hard to believe that Toyota would use 90% American suppliers because Japanese companies have very tight ties to thei parts suppliers in japan.
What matters most is where the corporation is based. Sending money to Toyota does not help this country as much as keeping the money here.
The global economy will not help much if GM went down. It would be a economic disaster of immense proportions.
Are you sure about the domestic content percentages? I find it hard to believe that Toyota would use 90% American suppliers because Japanese companies have very tight ties to thei parts suppliers in japan.
I can't speak to Toyota, but at least with Honda, the US-market Accord is a totally different car than the world market Accord. Different design, parts, et cetera. The world-market Accord is sold in the USA as the Acura TSX (one of the cars I'm looking at, if you recall). So it would make sense to me that the US Accord would be made with mostly American-supplied parts. Those parts aren't used for European or Japanese Hondas.
Quote:
What matters most is where the corporation is based. Sending money to Toyota does not help this country as much as keeping the money here.
Of the three categories, "where cars are built," "where their parts suppliers are located," and "where corporate headquarters is located," the last category matters the least, not the most. The first two provide significant jobs to the community. The last does not.
Quote:
The global economy will not help much if GM went down. It would be a economic disaster of immense proportions.
GM is a multi-billion-dollar corporation. If they can't keep themselves afloat with their own designs, I'm sure as heck not going to subsidize them out of pity. And they happen to not make any cars that strike my fancy anyway. Chrysler is profitable right now. It's possible for a US company to be profitable. If GM can't keep up, it reaps the consequences. That's capitalism for you.
I can't speak to Toyota, but at least with Honda, the US-market Accord is a totally different car than the world market Accord. Different design, parts, et cetera. The world-market Accord is sold in the USA as the Acura TSX (one of the cars I'm looking at, if you recall). So it would make sense to me that the US Accord would be made with mostly American-supplied parts. Those parts aren't used for European or Japanese Hondas.
Of the three categories, "where cars are built," "where their parts suppliers are located," and "where corporate headquarters is located," the last category matters the least, not the most. The first two provide significant jobs to the community. The last does not.
GM is a multi-billion-dollar corporation. If they can't keep themselves afloat with their own designs, I'm sure as heck not going to subsidize them out of pity. And they happen to not make any cars that strike my fancy anyway. Chrysler is profitable right now. It's possible for a US company to be profitable. If GM can't keep up, it reaps the consequences. That's capitalism for you.
You shouldnt buy something you dont want.
However, many Americans dismiss American cars out of hand and won't even consider buying them no matter what. Thats what concerns me.
I do agree that they screwed up big time over the years. Incompetence is inexcusable. I do, however, give them a chance to impress me.
So far the only domestic cars I really like are the Chevy HHR, the Chevy Cobalt, the Chevy Impala, The Buick LaCrosse, the Pontiac G6, the Pontiac Torrent (which has a Chinese built engine ), the Ford Mustang, the Mercury Milan, and pretty much all the Cadillacs-CTS, STS, SRX. Thats a pretty nice list. They all get pretty good reviews but many people won;t even test drive them. I think thats just sad.
If I were GM I would put a 10 year Warranty on all their vehicles, just like Hyundai did. That would help until perception catches up with reality.
Right now my main quandry in car buying is if I should go for a nicely equipped Civic or a lesser-equipped Accord.
The 2006 Accord EX four-cylinder is a far nicer car than a 2006 Civic, even a loaded Civic. I've test-driven both. There's a slight handling advantage to the Civic, but the Accord is good in that department for a family sedan, and it is vastly superior to the Civic in terms of interior quality, polished mechanical feel, acceleration, et cetera.
I think the Civic's only selling points are its handling and its fuel economy. The four-cylinder Accord, on the other hand, is a really solid, practical, well-rounded car for the typical driver.
However, many Americans dismiss American cars out of hand and won't even consider buying them no matter what. Thats what concerns me.
I do agree that they screwed up big time over the years. Incompetence is inexcusable. I do, however, give them a chance to impress me.
So far the only domestic cars I really like are the Chevy HHR, the Chevy Cobalt, the Chevy Impala, The Buick LaCrosse, the Pontiac G6, the Pontiac Torrent (which has a Chinese built engine ), the Ford Mustang, the Mercury Milan, and pretty much all the Cadillacs-CTS, STS, SRX. Thats a pretty nice list. They all get pretty good reviews but many people won;t even test drive them. I think thats just sad.
If I were GM I would put a 10 year Warranty on all their vehicles, just like Hyundai did. That would help until perception catches up with reality.
I will buy a car from any company if it's what I want. I considered the Cadillac CTS, but it's a bit too expensive, too big for me, and the interior isn't up to snuff against the competition. Other than that it's a really solid sport sedan. For anyone looking at midsize sport-sedans, it's a great choice, and would probably blow a Saab 9-5, Volvo S60, and possibly Acura TL out of the water in the "sport" department. I think the new Pontiac Solstice is pretty cool. Definitely a good competitor to the Miata. The LaCrosse CXS could be cool if they put a manual in it. EDIT: The new Lincoln Zephyr has one of the coolest interiors I've seen on a car. Very Rocketeer or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
But what's this stuff about "people won't test-drive the Mustang"? On the first year of the new model, Ford sold more Mustangs than Subaru sold all its cars combined.
I don't hate American cars, and if an American manufacturer built a compact semi-luxury sport sedan akin to a Volvo S40 or Acura TSX, I'd test-drive it. But at the current time, no American manufacturer does. They let their Swedish subsidiaries (Ford's got Volvo and GM's got Saab) handle that market.
Actually the wife has corrected me. It's an Accord or Camry.
And she makes more money than me, so what she says goes.
The Accord handles better and has a nice manual transmission with either the i4 or the V6, but it's prone to picking up rattles as it ages. The Camry has better sound insulation and insulates you from road imperfections more, but has more body lean in turns, and you can't get a manual with the V6. Other than that, they're pretty much the same car.
We have a 1993 Camry right now that is a 4cyl (135hp) and is pretty weak. The body doesn't rattle much at all, which is surprising. That's important because those little noises drive us both insane.
We live in midtown Houston, where the roads are absolute garbage. So this will actually be something of a concern.
And neither of us are huge performance nuts (we do like some kick, but we're not fussed too much) so I'm thinking either 6cyl will do us fine, or maybe even the 4cyl if they've pepped them up some.
My 1992 SC-300 puts out 225hp and I quite like it, so if the 6cyl models really feel sexy we're debating whether or not the 4-6mpg saving is worth it (and, of course, the extra money that could otherwise sit in a 401k or IRA and help us retire early!).
I'd love to get my liberal cred and go hybrid but automakers have just been idiots with it. The Accord hybrid is nice, but why do they make the thing such a niche product? A 255hp hybrid for $30k and a whopping 4-6 MPG savings?
Toyota looks to be going to more sane with their Camry hybrid, but everything I read on that says late 2006, I don't know if we can wait that long.
The 2006 Accord EX four-cylinder is a far nicer car than a 2006 Civic, even a loaded Civic. I've test-driven both. There's a slight handling advantage to the Civic, but the Accord is good in that department for a family sedan, and it is vastly superior to the Civic in terms of interior quality, polished mechanical feel, acceleration, et cetera.
I think the Civic's only selling points are its handling and its fuel economy. The four-cylinder Accord, on the other hand, is a really solid, practical, well-rounded car for the typical driver.
I understand the US and European/Japanese Accords are different cars, but at least here the Accord is awesome and it's not even available as V6. I4 2.0l with ~160hp and I4 2.4l with ~200hp are available. This review from a while ago (2003) tells it all. Note that the writer Julian Edgar runs the Aussie site Autospeed.com, which specializes on sports cars. This guy is no stranger to exotic Japan imports such as GT-R:s, nor fast V8 Holdens, and he calls the Accord a clear class leader and benchmark for future cars.
When my parents bought a new car, the ones going toe to toe last were A4 Quattro 2.0 T FSI and the Accord 2.4. At the end the Audi won because we secured a special offer that brought the Audi's price down very, very close to the Honda, and the best-on-market AWD and small improvements here and there were well worth the remaining difference. Had the A4 been normal price, the Honda would probably have won. It's the same class of car in any case.
Compared to the Accord, Civic feels clunky. Except the Type R, of course.
Actually the wife has corrected me. It's an Accord or Camry.
And she makes more money than me, so what she says goes.
[Nelson]Ha Ha![/Nelson]
In our household, it's Car A, the vehicle the wife wants, and Car B, the vehicle the husband wants. So, Car A is like a Honda Civic LX with 34 mpg mixed and Car B is like a Mazda RX-8 with 20 mpg mixed.
We have a 1993 Camry right now that is a 4cyl (135hp) and is pretty weak. The body doesn't rattle much at all, which is surprising. That's important because those little noises drive us both insane.
...
And neither of us are huge performance nuts (we do like some kick, but we're not fussed too much) so I'm thinking either 6cyl will do us fine, or maybe even the 4cyl if they've pepped them up some.
Get a Camry, either four-cylinder or six. All Hondas rattle with time. Toyota is legendary for its quiet interiors. As for your performance needs, if you're getting a manual transmission, the Camry's 157hp might be sufficient. But if you're getting an automatic, get the V6.
Quote:
I'd love to get my liberal cred and go hybrid but automakers have just been idiots with it.
As for your liberal credibility, don't get sucked into the hybrid things. While the economy-car hybrids (Civic Hybrid and Prius) get fantastic fuel savings, a lot of the latest-generation cars barely do better than normally-fueled cars. For example, a manual-transmission inline-four Accord (with 168hp) gets 26 mpg city, 34 highway. That's just three mpg off from the Accord Hybrid (which is admittedly 250hp). Wait until more manufacturers offer diesel cars, and go biodiesel. Hybrids are still dependent on petroleum, so they're like putting a band-aid on a shark bite. They don't fix the bigger problem.
You know, I've always noticed road noise in Hondas but I've kind of shunted it aside in my mind because of the (correct) impression that they go 8 jillion miles before dying.
Also, I've recently done a 180 on my usual thinking and am seriously considering buying new. Feel free to scream at me or praise me on this as I am definitely open to all ideas.
You know, I've always noticed road noise in Hondas but I've kind of shunted it aside in my mind because of the (correct) impression that they go 8 jillion miles before dying.
Also, I've recently done a 180 on my usual thinking and am seriously considering buying new. Feel free to scream at me or praise me on this as I am definitely open to all ideas.
I don't have to scream. I'll just quote you.
Quote:
(and, of course, the extra money that could otherwise sit in a 401k or IRA and help us retire early!).
You know, I've always noticed road noise in Hondas but I've kind of shunted it aside in my mind because of the (correct) impression that they go 8 jillion miles before dying.
When I lived in fairly wealthy areas of the Northeast and mid-atlantic, the used car market was a total steal, since the demand was low. Now I live in a much more median area, and the used car market is pretty hot. I couldn't see the value in buying used when the three-year resale on the [new] cars I was looking at was so good.
Houston is a pretty well-to-do town as far as Texas goes.
I'll probably do some pavement-pounding this week to check things out.
trumpt:
Quote:
Plus don't forget. She is more intelligent and most important of all, sane.
She's far more intelligent, but I think she actually might be a little less sane than I am, so... frightening.
The thing with used v. new is the mileage. People drive the hell out of their cars here in this massive state we call Texas.
Let's compare two cars.
2006 Camry LE
$21k & "0" miles (from toyota.com)
2004 Camry LE
$17k & 30k miles (from kbb.com)
It's likely we'll keep this thing for 150k miles either way. So, with a great deal of the used cars out there you're already 1/5th of the way there the second you drive it off the lot.
Plus you've lost a lot of the warranty already (if not all of it).
120,000 miles/$17,000 = 7.05 miles/dollar
150,000 miles/$21,000 = 7.14 miles/dollar
I use 150k as the baseline because that's where the current Camry is and it's not feeling its best in many different areas. But it's clear that used takes the cake once you get to 200,000 miles.
170,000 miles/$17,000 = 10 miles/dollar
200,000 miles/$21,000 = 9.52 miles/dollar
I figure that if you're able to find/negotiate a good deal on a used car you're able to find/negotiate a good deal on a new car. I don't know if there is a true difference between used/new car salesmen/managers.
After doing assloads of research into these cars the chasm between buying used and buying new is just a whole lot smaller than I thought it was.
She's far more intelligent, but I think she actually might be a little less sane than I am, so... frightening.[/B]
Actually that sounds kind of... hot.
Quote:
After doing assloads of research into these cars the chasm between buying used and buying new is just a whole lot smaller than I thought it was.
Now you can be a pretty smart guy and someday you'll get older like me and ask the follow up question to this good bit or reasoning....
Why the hell are used car prices so high when there is such a glut of cars that dealers are having to give employee pricing plus rebates/incentives to give them away?
Comments
The only public benefit these companies give is jobs, and that is determined by where their manufacturaing plants are located, not where the CEO lives. And Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai all do most of their manufacturing of US-market cars in the US, even though the CEOs live in East Asia.
When General Motors starts contributing to public education in Oregon, or pays for road repair in Oregon, then maybe I'll see a patriotic reason to buy GM. But at the moment, neither GM nor Toyota is doing jack to help the community I live in, so I see no reason to be more loyal to one than the other.<
You have no idea how wrong you are, my friend. The amount of jobs GM and Ford contribute to this country is spread upon its suppliers and those that supply them. Toyota and Honda do not have as much domestic content in their brands and they do not contribute nearly as many jobs as the Big 3.
Honda and Toyota are not domestic brands. Just because they build many cars here does not mean they are domestics.
I'm not telling you to buy an American car if you dont like them, just don;t be fooled into thinking it's patriotic to buy a foreign car that's made in the US. You are just fooling yourself if you think that way.
If GM goes down, you will see the repercussions. You think the market crash in '87 and 2000 were bad? It would be a disaster of immense proportions.
You have no idea how wrong you are, my friend. The amount of jobs GM and Ford contribute to this country is spread upon its suppliers and those that supply them. Toyota and Honda do not have as much domestic content in their brands and they do not contribute nearly as many jobs as the Big 3.
Honda and Toyota are not domestic brands. Just because they build many cars here does not mean they are domestics.
I'm not telling you to buy an American car if you dont like them, just don;t be fooled into thinking it's patriotic to buy a foreign car that's made in the US. You are just fooling yourself if you think that way.
So, what's more patriotic: buying a Toyota made in Fremont, California; a Honda made in Marysville, Ohio; a Ford made in Hermosillo, Mexico; or a Chrysler made in Windsor, Ontario, Canada by a German-owned parent company? How about a Saturn VUE with an engine supplied by Honda? How about a Chevy Aveo made in Korea?
Did you know that a Honda Ridgeline has 75% domestic (US and Canada) content, while a Chevy Avalanche has only 61% domestic content? A Toyota Camry built in Kentucky has 80% domestic content; a Chrysler 300 has only 72%. A Toyota Sienna has 90% domestic content while a Jeep Grand Cherokee has only 75%.
In a global economy, exhorting people to "buy American" cars is overly simplistic.
Originally posted by Voxapps
So, what's more patriotic: buying a Toyota made in Fremont, California; a Honda made in Marysville, Ohio; a Ford made in Hermosillo, Mexico; or a Chrysler made in Windsor, Ontario, Canada by a German-owned parent company? How about a Saturn VUE with an engine supplied by Honda? How about a Chevy Aveo made in Korea?
Did you know that a Honda Ridgeline has 75% domestic (US and Canada) content, while a Chevy Avalanche has only 61% domestic content? A Toyota Camry built in Kentucky has 80% domestic content; a Chrysler 300 has only 72%. A Toyota Sienna has 90% domestic content while a Jeep Grand Cherokee has only 75%.
In a global economy, exhorting people to "buy American" cars is overly simplistic.
Are you sure about the domestic content percentages? I find it hard to believe that Toyota would use 90% American suppliers because Japanese companies have very tight ties to thei parts suppliers in japan.
What matters most is where the corporation is based. Sending money to Toyota does not help this country as much as keeping the money here.
The global economy will not help much if GM went down. It would be a economic disaster of immense proportions.
Originally posted by steve666
Are you sure about the domestic content percentages? I find it hard to believe that Toyota would use 90% American suppliers because Japanese companies have very tight ties to thei parts suppliers in japan.
I can't speak to Toyota, but at least with Honda, the US-market Accord is a totally different car than the world market Accord. Different design, parts, et cetera. The world-market Accord is sold in the USA as the Acura TSX (one of the cars I'm looking at, if you recall). So it would make sense to me that the US Accord would be made with mostly American-supplied parts. Those parts aren't used for European or Japanese Hondas.
What matters most is where the corporation is based. Sending money to Toyota does not help this country as much as keeping the money here.
Of the three categories, "where cars are built," "where their parts suppliers are located," and "where corporate headquarters is located," the last category matters the least, not the most. The first two provide significant jobs to the community. The last does not.
The global economy will not help much if GM went down. It would be a economic disaster of immense proportions.
GM is a multi-billion-dollar corporation. If they can't keep themselves afloat with their own designs, I'm sure as heck not going to subsidize them out of pity. And they happen to not make any cars that strike my fancy anyway. Chrysler is profitable right now. It's possible for a US company to be profitable. If GM can't keep up, it reaps the consequences. That's capitalism for you.
Originally posted by Mitlov
I can't speak to Toyota, but at least with Honda, the US-market Accord is a totally different car than the world market Accord. Different design, parts, et cetera. The world-market Accord is sold in the USA as the Acura TSX (one of the cars I'm looking at, if you recall). So it would make sense to me that the US Accord would be made with mostly American-supplied parts. Those parts aren't used for European or Japanese Hondas.
Of the three categories, "where cars are built," "where their parts suppliers are located," and "where corporate headquarters is located," the last category matters the least, not the most. The first two provide significant jobs to the community. The last does not.
GM is a multi-billion-dollar corporation. If they can't keep themselves afloat with their own designs, I'm sure as heck not going to subsidize them out of pity. And they happen to not make any cars that strike my fancy anyway. Chrysler is profitable right now. It's possible for a US company to be profitable. If GM can't keep up, it reaps the consequences. That's capitalism for you.
You shouldnt buy something you dont want.
However, many Americans dismiss American cars out of hand and won't even consider buying them no matter what. Thats what concerns me.
I do agree that they screwed up big time over the years. Incompetence is inexcusable. I do, however, give them a chance to impress me.
So far the only domestic cars I really like are the Chevy HHR, the Chevy Cobalt, the Chevy Impala, The Buick LaCrosse, the Pontiac G6, the Pontiac Torrent (which has a Chinese built engine
If I were GM I would put a 10 year Warranty on all their vehicles, just like Hyundai did. That would help until perception catches up with reality.
Originally posted by groverat
Right now my main quandry in car buying is if I should go for a nicely equipped Civic or a lesser-equipped Accord.
The 2006 Accord EX four-cylinder is a far nicer car than a 2006 Civic, even a loaded Civic. I've test-driven both. There's a slight handling advantage to the Civic, but the Accord is good in that department for a family sedan, and it is vastly superior to the Civic in terms of interior quality, polished mechanical feel, acceleration, et cetera.
I think the Civic's only selling points are its handling and its fuel economy. The four-cylinder Accord, on the other hand, is a really solid, practical, well-rounded car for the typical driver.
Originally posted by steve666
You shouldnt buy something you dont want.
However, many Americans dismiss American cars out of hand and won't even consider buying them no matter what. Thats what concerns me.
I do agree that they screwed up big time over the years. Incompetence is inexcusable. I do, however, give them a chance to impress me.
So far the only domestic cars I really like are the Chevy HHR, the Chevy Cobalt, the Chevy Impala, The Buick LaCrosse, the Pontiac G6, the Pontiac Torrent (which has a Chinese built engine
If I were GM I would put a 10 year Warranty on all their vehicles, just like Hyundai did. That would help until perception catches up with reality.
I will buy a car from any company if it's what I want. I considered the Cadillac CTS, but it's a bit too expensive, too big for me, and the interior isn't up to snuff against the competition. Other than that it's a really solid sport sedan. For anyone looking at midsize sport-sedans, it's a great choice, and would probably blow a Saab 9-5, Volvo S60, and possibly Acura TL out of the water in the "sport" department. I think the new Pontiac Solstice is pretty cool. Definitely a good competitor to the Miata. The LaCrosse CXS could be cool if they put a manual in it. EDIT: The new Lincoln Zephyr has one of the coolest interiors I've seen on a car. Very Rocketeer or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
But what's this stuff about "people won't test-drive the Mustang"? On the first year of the new model, Ford sold more Mustangs than Subaru sold all its cars combined.
I don't hate American cars, and if an American manufacturer built a compact semi-luxury sport sedan akin to a Volvo S40 or Acura TSX, I'd test-drive it. But at the current time, no American manufacturer does. They let their Swedish subsidiaries (Ford's got Volvo and GM's got Saab) handle that market.
And she makes more money than me, so what she says goes.
Originally posted by groverat
Actually the wife has corrected me. It's an Accord or Camry.
And she makes more money than me, so what she says goes.
The Accord handles better and has a nice manual transmission with either the i4 or the V6, but it's prone to picking up rattles as it ages. The Camry has better sound insulation and insulates you from road imperfections more, but has more body lean in turns, and you can't get a manual with the V6. Other than that, they're pretty much the same car.
We live in midtown Houston, where the roads are absolute garbage. So this will actually be something of a concern.
And neither of us are huge performance nuts (we do like some kick, but we're not fussed too much) so I'm thinking either 6cyl will do us fine, or maybe even the 4cyl if they've pepped them up some.
My 1992 SC-300 puts out 225hp and I quite like it, so if the 6cyl models really feel sexy we're debating whether or not the 4-6mpg saving is worth it (and, of course, the extra money that could otherwise sit in a 401k or IRA and help us retire early!).
I'd love to get my liberal cred and go hybrid but automakers have just been idiots with it. The Accord hybrid is nice, but why do they make the thing such a niche product? A 255hp hybrid for $30k and a whopping 4-6 MPG savings?
Toyota looks to be going to more sane with their Camry hybrid, but everything I read on that says late 2006, I don't know if we can wait that long.
Originally posted by Mitlov
The 2006 Accord EX four-cylinder is a far nicer car than a 2006 Civic, even a loaded Civic. I've test-driven both. There's a slight handling advantage to the Civic, but the Accord is good in that department for a family sedan, and it is vastly superior to the Civic in terms of interior quality, polished mechanical feel, acceleration, et cetera.
I think the Civic's only selling points are its handling and its fuel economy. The four-cylinder Accord, on the other hand, is a really solid, practical, well-rounded car for the typical driver.
I understand the US and European/Japanese Accords are different cars, but at least here the Accord is awesome and it's not even available as V6. I4 2.0l with ~160hp and I4 2.4l with ~200hp are available. This review from a while ago (2003) tells it all. Note that the writer Julian Edgar runs the Aussie site Autospeed.com, which specializes on sports cars. This guy is no stranger to exotic Japan imports such as GT-R:s, nor fast V8 Holdens, and he calls the Accord a clear class leader and benchmark for future cars.
When my parents bought a new car, the ones going toe to toe last were A4 Quattro 2.0 T FSI and the Accord 2.4. At the end the Audi won because we secured a special offer that brought the Audi's price down very, very close to the Honda, and the best-on-market AWD and small improvements here and there were well worth the remaining difference. Had the A4 been normal price, the Honda would probably have won. It's the same class of car in any case.
Compared to the Accord, Civic feels clunky. Except the Type R, of course.
Originally posted by groverat
Actually the wife has corrected me. It's an Accord or Camry.
And she makes more money than me, so what she says goes.
[Nelson]Ha Ha![/Nelson]
In our household, it's Car A, the vehicle the wife wants, and Car B, the vehicle the husband wants. So, Car A is like a Honda Civic LX with 34 mpg mixed and Car B is like a Mazda RX-8 with 20 mpg mixed.
Suffice it to say, what she says goes...
Originally posted by groverat
We have a 1993 Camry right now that is a 4cyl (135hp) and is pretty weak. The body doesn't rattle much at all, which is surprising. That's important because those little noises drive us both insane.
...
And neither of us are huge performance nuts (we do like some kick, but we're not fussed too much) so I'm thinking either 6cyl will do us fine, or maybe even the 4cyl if they've pepped them up some.
Get a Camry, either four-cylinder or six. All Hondas rattle with time. Toyota is legendary for its quiet interiors. As for your performance needs, if you're getting a manual transmission, the Camry's 157hp might be sufficient. But if you're getting an automatic, get the V6.
I'd love to get my liberal cred and go hybrid but automakers have just been idiots with it.
As for your liberal credibility, don't get sucked into the hybrid things. While the economy-car hybrids (Civic Hybrid and Prius) get fantastic fuel savings, a lot of the latest-generation cars barely do better than normally-fueled cars. For example, a manual-transmission inline-four Accord (with 168hp) gets 26 mpg city, 34 highway. That's just three mpg off from the Accord Hybrid (which is admittedly 250hp). Wait until more manufacturers offer diesel cars, and go biodiesel. Hybrids are still dependent on petroleum, so they're like putting a band-aid on a shark bite. They don't fix the bigger problem.
Also, I've recently done a 180 on my usual thinking and am seriously considering buying new. Feel free to scream at me or praise me on this as I am definitely open to all ideas.
Originally posted by groverat
Actually the wife has corrected me. It's an Accord or Camry.
And she makes more money than me, so what she says goes.
Plus don't forget. She is more intelligent and most important of all, sane.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
You know, I've always noticed road noise in Hondas but I've kind of shunted it aside in my mind because of the (correct) impression that they go 8 jillion miles before dying.
Also, I've recently done a 180 on my usual thinking and am seriously considering buying new. Feel free to scream at me or praise me on this as I am definitely open to all ideas.
I don't have to scream. I'll just quote you.
(and, of course, the extra money that could otherwise sit in a 401k or IRA and help us retire early!).
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
You know, I've always noticed road noise in Hondas but I've kind of shunted it aside in my mind because of the (correct) impression that they go 8 jillion miles before dying.
When I lived in fairly wealthy areas of the Northeast and mid-atlantic, the used car market was a total steal, since the demand was low. Now I live in a much more median area, and the used car market is pretty hot. I couldn't see the value in buying used when the three-year resale on the [new] cars I was looking at was so good.
Houston is a pretty well-to-do town as far as Texas goes.
I'll probably do some pavement-pounding this week to check things out.
trumpt:
Plus don't forget. She is more intelligent and most important of all, sane.
She's far more intelligent, but I think she actually might be a little less sane than I am, so... frightening.
The thing with used v. new is the mileage. People drive the hell out of their cars here in this massive state we call Texas.
Let's compare two cars.
2006 Camry LE
$21k & "0" miles (from toyota.com)
2004 Camry LE
$17k & 30k miles (from kbb.com)
It's likely we'll keep this thing for 150k miles either way. So, with a great deal of the used cars out there you're already 1/5th of the way there the second you drive it off the lot.
Plus you've lost a lot of the warranty already (if not all of it).
120,000 miles/$17,000 = 7.05 miles/dollar
150,000 miles/$21,000 = 7.14 miles/dollar
I use 150k as the baseline because that's where the current Camry is and it's not feeling its best in many different areas. But it's clear that used takes the cake once you get to 200,000 miles.
170,000 miles/$17,000 = 10 miles/dollar
200,000 miles/$21,000 = 9.52 miles/dollar
I figure that if you're able to find/negotiate a good deal on a used car you're able to find/negotiate a good deal on a new car. I don't know if there is a true difference between used/new car salesmen/managers.
After doing assloads of research into these cars the chasm between buying used and buying new is just a whole lot smaller than I thought it was.
Leasing, though... that's still ridiculous.
Originally posted by groverat
She's far more intelligent, but I think she actually might be a little less sane than I am, so... frightening.[/B]
Actually that sounds kind of... hot.
After doing assloads of research into these cars the chasm between buying used and buying new is just a whole lot smaller than I thought it was.
Now you can be a pretty smart guy and someday you'll get older like me and ask the follow up question to this good bit or reasoning....
Why the hell are used car prices so high when there is such a glut of cars that dealers are having to give employee pricing plus rebates/incentives to give them away?
Nick